Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs RICKY JUGADOR, Et. AL.

Resolved on November 2008 Facts of the Case: Accused are charged of a crime of Section 16 (Cultivation of Plants Classified as Dangerous Drugs) of Republic Act 9165 before the Regional Trial Court of Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon. On November 4, 2007, elements of the Philippine National Police of Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon served the search warrant issued by the court a quo. At Alae, Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon, during the conduct of the search, they were able to seize 720 hills of matured marijuana plants. Accused, ricky Jugador and Ene Paderna were then apprehended and charged of the said crime and the prosecutors office of Manolo Fortich recommended no bail. Accused then filed a Motion to Quash the Search Warrant issued by the court a quo on the ground that the evidences presented during the application for the search warrant were product of a poisonous tree, thus, inadmissible as evidence in court. Accused further argued that prior to the issuance of the search warrant; the applicant of it entered the property of Ricky Jugador in the evening of October 31, 2007, and by destroying the fence made of cyclone wire and upon their entry, uprooted 4 Marijauna plants which were then brought to the Philippine National Police. Crime Laboratory for examination and the result of the said examination as well as the 4 Marijuana plants were presented as evidences during the application for search warrant and on this basis; the court a quo issued the search warrant. Accused also argued that the result of the laboratory examination and 4 Marijuana plants which were presented during the application for search warrant were fruits of a poisonous tree because without the benefit of a search warrant and their entry was without the consent of the accused, Ricky Jugador who owns the said property, thus the search was illegally issued by the court a quo. The court held the oral arguments of both parties and was ordered to submit their respective memorandum which they complied. The court a quo resolved to deny the motion to quash filed by the accused on the ground that only real and documentary evidences are considered fruits of a poisonous tree and testimonial evidences are not included. With the denial of the said motion, accused filed a motion for reconsideration and the same was denied. Thus, accused filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals, Mindanao Station and assigning the following errors of the court a quo: Thus, accused filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals, Mindanao Station and assigning the following errors of the court a quo:

Assignment of errors raised before the Court of Appeals: The Court, acted with grave abused of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it denied the Motion to Quash filed by the accused by the assailed search warrant. The court, in not declaring the Articles seized during the implementation of the search warrant as fruits of the poisonous tree.